Madras High Court
S.Abirami vs The Accountant General on 16 August, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.12148 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.12148 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9367 & 9368 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)No.4773 of 2018
S.Abirami ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Accountant General
(Accounts & Entitlements) Tamilnadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018.
2.Regional Joint Director,
Treasuries and Accounts,
Collectorate Complex,
Madurai-625 020.
3.Treasury Officer,
Dindigul District Treasury,
Dindigul District.
4.Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry,
Erode,
Erode District-633 031. ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12148 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3267/2017/G2,
dated 09.03.2017 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.
3267/2017/G2 dated 15.05.2017 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For R1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
For R2 to R4 : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned recovery order
dated 09.03.2017 passed by the third respondent and the consequential order
dated 15.05.2017.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, in which, a sum of
Rs.6,95,682/- has been claimed from the petitioner on account of the alleged
excess payments made to the petitioner towards family pension. The petitioner
has challenged the impugned order by raising various grounds including the
ground that the recovery made after an inordinate delay is impermissible in law
and also on the ground that the violative of principles of natural justice, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impugned order has been passed. The alleged excess payments made by the
respondents to the petitioner pertains to the period from 06.11.2007 to
28.02.2017 amounting to Rs.6,76,750/-.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of
this Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 AIR
696 and would submit that since the recovery order has been issued without
following the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore cited
decision, the impugned order has to be quashed. He would also submit that the
recoveries pertain to a period beyond the period of 5 years, which is not
permissible under law as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred
to supra.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would reiterate the contentions of the
counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and would submit that the
recovery order has been issued only due to the excess payments made by the
respondents towards family pension payable to the petitioner. The alleged
excess payments pertain to the period from 6.11.2007 to 28.02.2017 and it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amounts to Rs.6,76,750/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear in the
Rafiq Masih (White Washer)'s case referred to supra that under the following
circumstances, the recoveries from the employees would be impermissible in
law:
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has
been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been
required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
5. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been
considered by the respondents in the impugned order before directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,76,750/- since the recoveries pertain to certain
periods beyond the period of 5 years, one of the prohibitions stipulated in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 AIR 696 namely that the recovery from
the employees when the excess payment has been made from the period in
excess of 5 years before the order of recovery may come into play and may
come to the benefit of the petitioner. The impugned order is a cryptic and non-
speaking order calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,95,682/- on
account of alleged excess payments made by the respondents to the petitioner
towards family pension. Being a non-speaking and cryptic order and the order
having not considered the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned
order has to be quashed, the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for
fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 AIR 696,
within a time frame fixed by this Court.
6. In the result, the impugned order of the third respondent dated
09.03.2017 and the consequential impugned order, dated 15.05.2017 are hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and
others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 AIR 696. The
third respondent is directed to pass final orders within a period of twelve (12)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
16.08.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
am
To
1.Regional Joint Director,
Treasuries and Accounts,
Collectorate Complex,
Madurai-625 020.
2.Treasury Officer,
Dindigul District Treasury,
Dindigul District.
3.Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry,
Erode,
Erode District-633 031.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
am
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
